Article 17, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides: “[A]n Official Graves Registration Service [shall be established] to allow … the possible transportation of the remains to the home country. These provisions shall likewise apply to the ashes”.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 17, third para.

Geneva Convention III

Article 120, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides, with regard to the possibility of return of the remains to the home country:

Responsibility … for records of any subsequent moves of the bodies shall rest on the Power controlling the territory … These provisions shall also apply to the ashes, which shall be kept by the Graves Registration Service until proper disposal thereof in accordance with the wishes of the home country.

Article 130, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The ashes [of deceased internees] shall be retained for safe-keeping by the detaining authorities and shall be transferred as soon as possible to the next of kin on their request.”

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 130, second para.

Panmunjom Armistice Agreement

Article II(13)(f) of the 1953 Panmunjom Armistice Agreement provides:

[T]he Commanders of the opposing sides shall:

…

f. In those cases where places of burial are a matter of record and graves are actually found to exist, permit graves registration personnel of the other side to enter, within a definite time limit after this Armistice Agreement becomes effective, the territory of Korea under their military control, for the purpose of proceeding to such graves to recover and evacuate the bodies of the deceased military personnel of that side, including deceased prisoners of war.

Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a Military Armistice in Korea, Panmunjom, 27 July 1953, Article II(13)(f).

Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam

Article 8(b) of the 1973 Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam contains provisions designed “to facilitate … repatriation of remains”.

Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam, signed on behalf of the United States of America, the Republic of Viet-Nam, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam, Paris, 27 January 1973, Article 8(b).

Additional Protocol I

Article 34 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:

2. As soon as circumstances and the relations between the adverse Parties permit, the High Contracting Parties in whose territories graves and, as the case may be, other locations of the remains of persons who have died as a result of hostilities or during occupation or in detention are situated, shall conclude agreements in order:

…

(b) to protect and maintain such gravesites permanently;

(c) to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased … to the home country upon its request or, unless that country objects, upon the request of the next of kin.

3. In the absence of the agreements provided for in paragraph 2 (b) or (c) and if the home country of such deceased is not willing to arrange at its expense for the maintenance of such gravesites, the High Contracting Party in whose territory the gravesites are situated may offer to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased to the home country. Where such an offer has not been accepted the High Contracting Party may, after the expiry of five years from the date of the offer and upon due notice to the home country, adopt the arrangements laid down in its own laws relating to cemeteries and graves.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 34. Article 34 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 71.

Finnish-Russian Agreement on War Dead

The 1992 Finnish-Russian Agreement on War Dead provides for cooperation in relation to the identification and return of the remains of soldiers dating from the Second World War.

Agreement on Cooperation in Perpetuating the Memory of Finnish Servicemen in Russia and Russian (Soviet) Servicemen in Finland Who Fell in the Second World War, Helsinki, 11 July 1992.

Estonian-Finnish Agreement on War Dead

The 1997 Estonian-Finnish Agreement on War Dead provides for cooperation in relation to the identification and return of the remains of soldiers dating from the Second World War.

Agreement on Cooperation in Acknowledging the Memory of the War Victims, concluded between Estonia and Finland, Parnu, 16 August 1997.

Plan of Operation for the Joint Commission to Trace Missing Persons and Mortal Remains

Proposal 1.2 of the 1991 Plan of Operation for the Joint Commission to Trace Missing Persons and Mortal Remains in the context of the former Yugoslavia provided: “At the request of the party on which the deceased depended, the parties to the conflict shall organize the handover of the mortal remains.”

Joint Commission to Trace Missing Persons and Mortal Remains: Rules of Procedure and Plan of Operation, established on the Basis of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Serbia, Yugoslav People’s Army and International Committee of the Red Cross, Pècs, 16 December 1991, Proposal 1.2.

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines

Article 3(4) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides that “breach of [the] duty to tender immediately [the remains of those who have died in the course of the armed conflict or while under detention] to their families” shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to persons hors de combat.

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part IV, Article 3(4).

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “The ashes of the deceased shall be forwarded to the Graves Registration and the ashes exchanged as soon as practical following the conclusion of hostilities.”

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “The ashes of the deceased shall be forwarded to Graves Registration and the ashes exchanged as soon as practicable following the conclusion of hostilities.”

Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.105.

The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).

Belgium

Belgium’s Specific Procedure on the Prisoners of War Information Bureau (2007) provides: “If the remains of enemy combatants are situated in a territory under the control of Belgian armed forces, the PWIB [Prisoners of War Information Bureau] shall … be informed as soon as possible.”

Brazil’s Operations Manual for the Evacuation of Non-Combatants (2007) states: “Under no circumstances shall the mortal remains [of military personnel and non-combatants] be transferred [to a safe place] before all evacuated persons have been safely transported.”

1.2.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations are conducted by the Ministry of Defence, upon request by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the evacuation of non-combatants whose lives are in danger, from their host country to a safe place of destination …

…

3.4.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations … may be triggered by sudden changes in the government of the host country, changes in its political or military orientation with regard to Brazil, or hostile threats to Brazilian citizens by internal or external forces in that country.

…

Annex A. Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict

…

3. The Law of Armed Conflict

According to the policy of the Ministry of Defence, the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict regulate the actions taken by the Joint Command in the defence of its personnel, property and equipment.

As soon as circumstances and the relations between the parties to the conflict permit, the parties whose territory contains graves of persons who died during the conflict must conclude agreements in order:

…

- to facilitate the return of the remains and personal effects to the country of origin.

Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that when bodies have been cremated, the ashes of the deceased shall be forwarded to the Graves Registration Authority and handed over to relatives as soon as practicable.

The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “The ashes must be respectfully treated, and kept by the Graves Registration Service until properly disposed of according to the wishes of the home country.”

United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 384.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:

Graves registration services must be officially established at the outbreak of hostilities and, as soon as circumstances permit, the adverse parties and any other concerned authorities are required to seek agreement for:

…

c. The return of remains of the deceased to the home state on that state’s request or, unless that state objects, on the request of the next of kin.

United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 7.36.

The manual further states:

In the absence of agreements relating either to protection and maintenance of grave sites or for the return of the deceased, the authorities of the territory in which the grave sites are situated may (a) offer to facilitate the return of the remains to the home state; and (b) if such an offer is not accepted within five years from the date of the offer, and after due notice, adopt arrangements for dealing with such remains in accordance with their own domestic laws relating to cemeteries and graves.

United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 7.36.1.

United States of America

The US Field Manual (1956) provides that an Official Graves Registration Service “shall allow … the possible transportation to the home country” of the bodies exhumed. The manual adds that the ashes “shall be kept by the Graves Registration Service until proper disposal thereof in accordance with the wishes of the home country”.

United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 218.

United States of America

The Annotated Supplement to the US Naval Handbook (1997) provides that “as soon as circumstances permit, arrangement be made to … facilitate the return of the remains when requested”.

United States, Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, prepared by the Oceans Law and Policy Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, November 1997, § 11.4, footnote 19.

Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides:

The appropriate authorities and governmental bodies of the Azerbaijan Republic shall ensure that the necessary measures be taken that: … the places where dead bodies … were buried should be marked … and recorded … with the aim to return back these dead bodies … following a request from the parties and close relatives of the dead persons.

Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 29(5).

Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime.

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:

Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment].

Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].

Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Ireland

Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 17 of the Geneva Convention I, Article 120 of the Geneva Convention III and Article 130 of the Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 34, are punishable offences.

Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment.

Persons against whom a criminal investigation concerning their terrorist activities has been closed on account of their death following interception of the said terrorist act shall be interred in accordance with the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Their bodies shall not be handed over for burial.

Russian Federation, Interment and Burial Amendment Act, 2002.

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation’s Suppression of Terrorism Amendment Act (2002) states: “[T]he interment of terrorists who die as a result of the interception of a terrorist act shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Their bodies shall not be handed over for burial.”

In a case before Colombia’s Administrative Court in Cundinamarca in 1985, it was stated that families must not be denied their legitimate right to claim the bodies of their relatives, transfer them to wherever they see fit, and bury them.

According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, in the Abu-Rijwa case in 2000, the Israel Defense Forces carried out DNA identification tests when asked by family members to repatriate remains, implying that when these remains are identified correctly, they will be returned.

Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 5.1, referring to High Court, Abu-Rijwa case, Judgment, 15 November 2000.

Russian Federation

In 2007, in the Burial case, the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court was called upon to rule on the constitutionality of two laws related to the interment of suspected terrorists whose deaths resulted from the interception of their terrorist acts. The Court held that the restrictive measures introduced by these laws were in conformity with the Constitution. The Court stated:

3.1 … [T]he interest in fighting terrorism, in preventing terrorism in general and specific terms and in providing redress for the effects of terrorist acts, coupled with the risk of mass disorder, clashes between different ethnic groups and aggression by the next of kin of those involved in terrorist activity against the population at large and law-enforcement officials, and lastly the threat to human life and limb, may, in a given historical context, justify the establishment of a particular legal regime, such as that provided for by section 14(1) of the Federal Act [on Interment and Burial of 12 January 1996, as amended], governing the burial of persons who escape prosecution in connection with terrorist activity on account of their death following the interception of a terrorist act. …

…

3.2. Action to minimise the informational and psychological impact of the terrorist act on the population, including the weakening of its propaganda effect, is one of the means necessary to protect public security and the morals, health, rights and legal interests of citizens. It therefore pursues exactly those aims for which the Constitution of the Russian Federation and international legal instruments permit restrictions on the relevant rights and freedoms.

…

In the conditions which have arisen in the Russian Federation as a result of the commission of a series of terrorist acts which produced numerous human victims, resulted in widespread negative social reaction and had a major impact on the collective consciousness, the return of the body to the relatives … may create a threat to social order and peace and to the rights and legal interests of other persons and their security, including incitement to hatred and incitement to engage in acts of vandalism, violence, mass disorder and clashes which may produce further victims. …

In such circumstances, the federal legislature may introduce special arrangements governing the burial of individuals whose death occurred as a result of the interception of a terrorist act in which they were taking part.

The constitutional and legal meaning of the existing norms presupposes the possibility of bringing court proceedings to challenge a decision to discontinue, on account of the deaths of the suspects, a criminal case against or prosecution of participants in a terrorist act. Accordingly, they also presuppose an obligation on the court’s part to examine the substance of the complaint, that is, to verify [that] the decision and the conclusions therein [are lawful and well founded] as regards the participation of the persons concerned in a terrorist act, and to establish the absence of grounds for rehabilitating [the suspects] and discontinuing the criminal case. They thus entail an examination of the lawfulness of the application of the aforementioned restrictive measures. Until the entry into force of the court judgment the deceased’s remains cannot be buried.

In 2008, a training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, including war crimes, was adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. When addressing the issue of mass graves used for the concealment of evidence of human rights violations committed during armed conflicts, the training manual states: “Objectives [of the exhumation of mass graves]: … to return the remains … to members … [of the victims’] families so the latter can organise their funerals with dignity”.

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Justice seminar, 2008, p. 35.

Egypt

In 1975 and 1976, the exchange and repatriation of mortal remains of both civilians and combatants were carried out between Egypt and Israel in the presence of ICRC delegates.

According to the Report on the Practice of Egypt, it is the well-established practice of Egypt to exchange and repatriate mortal remains, in order to enable burial in accordance with the wishes of the deceased and their families.

Report on the Practice of Egypt, 1997, Chapter 5.1.

Greece

In 1996, the Greek observer to the UN Commission on Human Rights stressed that if the deaths of persons missing in Cyprus were confirmed, their remains would be returned to their families.

In 1991, the Asian Yearbook of International Law reported that the “ashes of 3,500 Japanese soldiers killed during World War II in Irian Jaya were handed over by Indonesia to the Japanese Ambassador at Jakarta”.

The [M]inistry of [H]uman Rights had received on Tuesday Feb. 01, 2011 [at the] Shalamja border crossing the remains of 38 Iraqi martyrs that lost their lives during the Iraqi-Iranian war. … Five of the martyrs received were of known identity and [this] shall be duly published after testing and inspection, to be delivered to their families. The names of the known martyrs were published by the [M]inistry in the media … and were not received by their families yet.

It is worth mentioning that the number of remains received from [the] Iranian side had reached 249, some of them of known and [some of] unknown identities[,] while 52 Iranian remains were handed over to the Iranian side from 2003 until this date[.]

In 2011, Iraq’s Ministry of Human Rights issued a press release entitled “The Min[is]try of Human Rights hands over remains [from the] Iraq-Iran war to the Iranian sid[e]”, which stated:

The Iraqi side, represented by the [M]inistry of [H]uman [R]ights, handed over to Iran the remains of 17 Iranians [on] April 04, 2011 through [the] Al-Shalamja border crossing. … It is worth mentioning that Iran handed over to Iraq 38 remains of Iraqi martyrs, 6 of which were of known identity and [whose] names were published in local media.

The exchange of remains process between the two sides shall continue as soon as such remains are found[,] according to the two MOUs signed by Iraq[,] represented by the Ministry of Human Rights[,] and Iran, in coordi[n]ation with the ICRC.

According to the Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is the opinio juris of the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on practice in the Iran–Iraq War, that attempts should be made to return the bodies of dead combatants to the relevant party.

Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 5.1, referring to Statement by the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, 15 November 1980 and Military Communiqué No. 2176, 27 July 1985.

Israel

In 1975 and 1976, the exchange and repatriation of mortal remains of both civilians and combatants were carried out between Egypt and Israel in the presence of ICRC delegates.

In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: “We support … the principle that each party to a conflict permit teams to … facilitate the return of the remains when requested”.

United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 424.

In a resolution adopted in 1974 on assistance and cooperation in accounting for persons who are missing or dead in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:

Calls upon parties to armed conflicts, regardless of their character and location, during and after the end of hostilities and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, to take such action as may be within their power … to facilitate the disinterment and the return of remains, if requested by their families.

In 1996, in a report concerning Liberia, the UN Secretary-General reported that UNOMIL had facilitated discussions on the release of the bodies of soldiers killed in the fighting, which the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO-J) had accepted on the understanding that concerns about its own combatants would be considered.

The 22nd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1973 adopted a resolution on the missing and dead in armed conflicts in which it called on parties to armed conflicts “during hostilities and after cessation of hostilities … to facilitate the disinterment and return of remains”.

22nd International Conference of the Red Cross, Teheran, 8–15 November 1973, Res. V.

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1999)

The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent proposed that all the parties to an armed conflict take effective measures to ensure that “every effort is made to identify dead persons, inform their families and return their bodies to them”.

27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.1, § 1(e).

In a case concerning Suriname before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1989, it was reported that, in 1987, the military did not allow family members to collect the remains of a large number of dead following an attack by the National Army.

In a case concerning Colombia before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1995, testimony was given to the effect that, in 1990, the witness was permitted by a Colombian brigade commander to collect the body of her husband for burial, following his death in an indiscriminate attack on a house suspected of harbouring guerrillas.

To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “The return of remains and ashes of the deceased … to the home State shall be facilitated.”

Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 262.

ICRC

The ICRC often acts as a neutral intermediary between the parties to the conflict regarding servicemen missing in action so that the mortal remains of combatants may be returned to the respective parties. For instance, in 1998, in the context of the conflict in Sri Lanka, the ICRC transported the remains of 1,014 government soldiers and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) combatants.

ICRC, Annual Report 1998, Geneva, 1999, p. 175.

The same year, it “repatriated the mortal remains of an Israeli soldier and of 40 Lebanese fighters to their respective countries”.

Article 4, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva Convention provides that belligerents shall “collect and transmit to each other all articles of a personal nature found on the field of battle or on the dead”.

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 4, third para.

Geneva Convention I

Article 16, fourth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides that parties to the conflict shall “collect and forward through the [Information Bureau] … money and in general all articles of an intrinsic or sentimental value, which are found on the dead”.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 16, fourth para.

Geneva Convention II

Article 19, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention II provides that parties to the conflict shall “collect and forward through the [Information Bureau] … money and in general all articles of an intrinsic or sentimental value, which are found on the dead”.

Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 19, third para.

The Information Bureau shall furthermore be charged with collecting all personal valuables, including sums in currencies other than that of the Detaining Power and documents of importance to the next of kin, left by prisoners of war who have … died, and shall forward the said valuables to the Powers concerned.

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 122.

Geneva Convention IV

Article 139 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:

Each National Information Bureau shall, furthermore, be responsible for collecting all personal valuables left by [any protected persons who are kept in custody for more than two weeks, who are subjected to assigned residence or who are interned], in particular those who have … died; it shall forward the said valuables to those concerned, either direct, or, if necessary, through the Central Agency.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 139.

Additional Protocol I

Article 34(2)(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that as soon “as the circumstances and the relations between the adverse Parties permit, … [they] shall conclude agreements in order … to facilitate the return of the personal effects of the deceased”.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 34(2)(c). Article 34 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 71.

NATO Standardization Agreement 2070

The 1999 NATO Standardization Agreement 2070 provides:

18. With the exception of deceased United States personnel, all personal effects (including all personal and official papers) are removed from the remains and placed in a suitable receptacle. One identification tag/disc must be buried with the corpse. The second identification tag/disc, or the removable part, is placed in the receptacle with the personal effects. In the case of United States personnel, all personal effects and one identification tag are buried with the remains …

19. An inventory is to be made of the personal effects, checked and signed by an officer, and dispatched with the receptacle containing the personal effects.

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that “last wills or other documents of importance to the family of the dead, money and in general all objects of an intrinsic or sentimental value which are found on the dead” shall be transmitted to the other party through its national Information Bureau.

Belgium’s Specific Procedure on the Prisoners of War Information Bureau (2007) states that the tasks of the PWIB (Prisoners of War Information Bureau) include: “collecting and transmitting all personal valuables, including money and documents useful to the next of kin, left by the prisoners of war who have been repatriated, released, escaped or died”.

a. The PWIB shall furthermore be charged with collecting and forwarding to the States concerned all personal valuables, including sums of money and documents of importance to the next of kin, left by prisoners of war who have … died.

…

h. Likewise, the PWIB is to follow an identical procedure to remit to the family of a Belgian PW [prisoner of war] who … has … died, all valuables that the latter has left and that the CTA [Central Tracing Agency] or any other body has returned, except for strictly military articles. These shall be forwarded to the unit of the individual concerned, which should then return them to the family if the said articles prove to be of a personal nature.

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “The Dead”, states: “The … personal effects must be evacuated. A report must be written about the deceased and the measures subsequently taken.”

Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “It is incumbent on each party to … hand over to the other side half of the dog-tag worn by the fallen soldier as well as his personal effects.”

Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 61.

Israel

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “Each side has the duty to record details of the fallen and details of the death, and to send to the other side half the identity tag worn by the fallen, his personal possessions and the death certificate.”

Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 39.

The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).

The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides that the parties to the conflict shall conclude agreements in order to “facilitate the return of the personal effects of the deceased to the home country”.

As soon as circumstances and the relations between the parties to the conflict permit, the parties whose territory contains graves of persons who died during the conflict must conclude agreements in order:

…

- to facilitate the return of the remains and personal effects to the country of origin.

2.6.2 Personal effects belonging to deceased persons of other nationalities

All personal effects belonging to deceased persons of other nationalities, together with the relevant documents, should be archived and stored securely.

…

Personal effects belonging to deceased members of enemy forces shall be sent to the Information Bureau of the Polish Red Cross, in accordance with the regulations of the state in which the burial is performed.

The personal effects of deceased members of NATO allied forces shall be sent on by the Records Office to the relevant offices in those countries.

If it is not possible to establish the personal details of the deceased, their personal effects, and half of their identity tag shall be sent to the Records Office.

Poland, Norma Obronna NO-02-A053:2004, Działania wojenne Procedury pochówku poległych i zmarłych,enacted by decision No. 134/MON related to the Approval and Enforcement of Regulatory Instruments in Respect of State Defence and Security, 21 April 2009, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of National Defence, No. 8, Item 99, April 2009, Section 2.6.

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) provides:

After the burial, a proper statement shall be drawn up containing a description of the burial site (its precise coordinates), with enclosed lists of identified bodies, and specifying the number of unidentified bodies and their description. The statement shall be made in two copies.

The burial statement and the lists of the dead shall be certified by the signature of a person in charge of the burial, stamped with the official seal of the military unit (organization) and confirmed by the superior commander.

The first copy of the burial statement, as well as the first copies of the inventory of the personal effects of the deceased and a cover letter, shall be sent to the army’s headquarters. As soon as circumstances permit and at the latest at the end of hostilities, the second copy of the statement with the enclosures and the parcels containing the personal effects of the deceased shall be handed over through international channels to the competent authorities of the adverse party.

Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 169.

Senegal

Senegal’s IHL Manual (1999) provides that, in situations of internal troubles, the personal effects of the dead shall be collected and evacuated with the dead body.

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Efforts must be made to facilitate the return of the … personal effects [of the deceased] to their country of origin”. Such personal effects “must be sent to the national information bureau”. Specifically mentioned personal effects for return include: “identity cards” and “last wills and any other documents of importance to the next of kin, money and, in general, all objects of an intrinsic or sentimental value found on the body”.

Personal belongings of the deceased servicemen shall be sent to their relatives who have the right of hereditary succession. Items of military uniform clothing (except for the organizational items) belonging to officers and warrant officers shall be sent to relatives together with personal belongings. Items belonging to rank and file (sergeants and privates) shall be returned to the military units inventories.

Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 2.5.3.4.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “The belligerents must also forward to each other through … [the information] bureau … last wills or other documents of importance to the next of kin; money and all articles of an intrinsic or sentimental value which are found on the dead”.

United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 382.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:

Looting is an offence under the Service Discipline Acts. The personal effects of the dead should be collected in identifiable packets and sent with any available identity disc to the information bureau. The personal effects that are particularly envisaged here are money, all items of intrinsic or sentimental value and last wills or other documents of importance to the next of kin. Articles other than personal effects, such as military equipment, found upon the dead of a hostile party to an armed conflict become the public property of the finding party, that is the property of the government, not of the individuals or unit capturing them.

United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 7.34.

United States of America

The US Field Manual (1956) provides that parties to the conflict shall “collect and forward through the … [information] bureau one half of the double identity disc, last wills or other documents of importance to the next of kin, money and in general all articles of an intrinsic or sentimental value, which are found on the dead”.

United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 217.

Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides:

The appropriate authorities and governmental bodies of the Azerbaijan Republic shall ensure that the necessary measures be taken … to return back … personal property [of the dead] following a request from the parties and close relatives of the dead persons.

Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 29(5).

Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime.

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:

Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment].

Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].

Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Ireland

Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 16 of the Geneva Convention I, Article 19 of the Geneva Convention II, Article 122 of the Geneva Convention III and Article 139 of the Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 34(2)(c), are punishable offences.

Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides: “The objects of personal use belonging to enemy dead on the battlefield shall be collected and kept safely.”

Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 94.

Norway

Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:

Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment.

UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)

In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) noted: “For every deceased person who falls into the hands of the adverse party, the adverse party must … forward … personal effects to the appropriate parties.”

To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that the “return of … [the] personal effects [of the deceased] to the home State shall be facilitated”.

Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 262 and 739.